Trump isn’t cool. He’s not detached. No one will ever accuse him of being too shy. He loves to talk about himself and he enjoys telling people what he wants to do. Yeah, he laid the “oi vey” gestures on a little thick in the beginning; he has certain ideas about establishing rapport, especially with a hostile crowd. Sometimes they work. Sometimes nothing works.
I’ve read reviews of this speech which claim he was booed and poorly received. I watched it because I wanted to know how accurate those reviews were. But all I heard was one heckler (Trump told him off) and a number of room-temperature applause points for ideas that should have set these people on fire. I would say he was “cooly received” and with this insular group that’s the best he could have hoped for.
But Trump soldiered on. He talked straight to this group and he enumerated his successes and his plans should he be elected. He said very plainly that there is “something wrong” with Obama – a sentiment many Americans share.
The ending was quiet – no boos and no bravos. His listeners should be ashamed: they failed to welcome with genuine approval the candidate most committed to Israel’s survival. They proved again that being smart isn’t necessarily a point in your favor when it comes to survival.
One thing to ask yourself: did you learn anything from that speech? I did. I understand better – in specific terms – why American companies are leaving the country and costing us trillions in tax receipts and jobs. I knew it vaguely before but I grasp it much more fully now.
NOTICE: There was no written speech. He had a few notes scratched on paper and stuffed into an envelope. There was a glaring absence of teleprompters. He doesn’t need those crutches because he knows what he wants to say.
What a huge difference between him and that Marie Antoinette in the Oval Office, playing his fiddle while the country burns.
I’ve had a Trump sticker on my car since May. At times I wondered if it should come off but it never did. And even if he fails to win I won’t take it off.
I watched the full show. I bought into Trump as what America needed, from the moment he announced his candidacy and not because I like him; but because he says what he means and he does what he says he will do and most importantly because he is a massively successful businessman (I read the Art of the Deal when it came out in 1987).
Business men and women succeed because they surround themselves with knowledgeable experts (experts in every facet of the whole that is required to get the deal done to the satisfaction of all involved stakeholders so these parties build collective trust and are willing to expand their relationships and deal making thus providing jobs and security (security of many types) and prosperity for all of us. It is money that makes the world go ‘round and Trump has plenty and doesn’t need anybody else’s to be successful. It is straight-talking business people, not Politicians who make a nation prosperous.
This speech convinced me Trump is serious. I wanted to believe this and watched the debates which are not necessarily a true measure of his heart and soul but rather building blocks of a strategy to achieve his final objective, which is the trust of Real Americans and Real American allies around the globe. On the heels of this I’m convinced Trump will be the next President of a rebounding America. Following are the key factors gleaned from today that brought me to full conviction:
• He named Islam as America’s greatest security threat (alright he did label it ‘Radical’ islam but I believe he knows mad m0 and allah are the principal culprits);
• He identified and named Hillary ‘Dodging Bullets’ Clinton’s behavioural criminal variables (Watergate, Whitewater, Benghazi and Emailgate to name a few) and physical weaknesses;
• He called out Obama as the treasonous, taqqiya-spewing snake he is; and
• Identified the structural military vacuum resulting from and associated with Obama’s traitorous actions (*moslim brotherhood (mb) support of Morsi, Irangate and hatred of Bibi and Israel (to name but a few).
I think he won over a tough Jewish crowd tonight with his straight talk and promises of corrective action (Irangate, Obamacare, military re-empowerment and the abroading of critical American business enterprise). He is full of energy. He resonates with REAL, everyday Americans (the kind you find in rural Virginia, Wisconsin, Texas, etc). He has gone as far as business can take him and is embarking on the greatest challenge of his life – the restoration of America and Western civilization – and I sense he has a genuine love and feel of the critical elements needed to restore our great society; love of family, love of nation (America and Israel foremost) and love of and belief in self (I’m leaving G-d out of this equation).
I’d not given up hope that a present day Winston Churchill would finally arrive and I believe in Trump we have him. He identified our enemies (domestic and foreign) and our friends and broadly laid out an action plan to deal with our enemies, restore our allies’ faith in us and to make America great again.
* Misspelling is deliberate.
PS. I quote you following Dymphna. “ I understand better – in specific terms – why American companies are leaving the country and costing us trillions in tax receipts and jobs.” Can you elaborate on this please? Like you I have a better understanding – but mine is still incomplete.
Gates of Vienna has more faith in rich Jewish people than it should have.
Unfortunately, both in the US and Europe, it should be crystal clear by now that quite a lot of Jewish people are for massive immigration and not against it, presumably basing it on the idea that it is better for Jewish people to be one strong group among many, rather than in a country mainly dominated numerically by the local population.
The way Trump and Wilders among others have to insist on their support for Israel shows they realise that unfortunately powerful Jewish people are mainly against them. (And they need some at least on their side.) Insisting on support for Israel changes this chance of substantial Jewish support from zero to slim.
It`s sad, they`d be great allies – and a great many of them aren`t.
There is much merit to your analysis, but things are changing (slowly) in relation to the Western Jewish community’s century old love affair with the soft Left. Thatcher was supported by that part of the Jewish community in Britain who were in business, the part epitomized by Harold Pinter and Alexei Sayle , ie the arts and media Hampstead crowd, naturally loathed her the Tories. Or purported to.
What you are missing is that Trump wasn’t trying to win over “rich Jews” – he doesn’t need their money like the Democratic Party does ( as does the Australian Labor Party, over 50% of its private donations come from Jewish donors according to the former Labor Prime Minister, Bob Carr) – he was trying to win over “powerful Jews”, ie those who head up the multitude of organized Jewish community organizations. The two groups are not mutually exclusive, but the latter tend to be led by Leftish PC softheads who seek status not money. There’s a Canadian one (whose name escapes me, Bernie Farber?) who is the sort of guy who would mobilize the “troops” to OPPOSE a “Ban the burka” movement. So that the progeny of said burka wearers have more freedom to kill him and his grandkids. A fool.
Geert Wilders’ support for Israel is totally genuine and not a public show to garner Jewish support. His life trajectory shows that he basically fell in love with Israel after he went there as a young college graduate and was profoundly struck by the stark contrast between it and the Arab-Muslim countries he had visited – as would any sane Westerner with eyes to see.
The thing about Trump is that he’s both a big picture man and a small details man. Combine that with his intense love of America, traditional America, and he will make a great president. He may even prevent the country going over the brink Hussein has brought it to.
As a Jew I must admit, a painful admission, that many Jewish movers and shakers, who think of themselves as sophisticates, are really quite shallow. So shallow that they allow themselves to be put off by the surface Trump schtick that is actually, to me at least, quite endearing. They find the surface off-putting, probably because of their own insecurities and cannot get past it and see the man of substance. A man who is also a natural ally.
ricpic
I heartily agree, especially with your second paragraph. I too find the Trump schtick endearing. And, as the GoV-posted interview with Lemon showed, is quite capable of holding his own against semi-hostile media talking heads. As Pat Condell said recently, Trump is filling a void: people have been starved of honesty from their political leaders and opinion shapers and Trump is a WSIWYG person. He is what he is (I wouldn’t want my home to be decorated and furnished like Trump’s no matter how much money I had) he and, more importantly, as a political candidate, can afford to be himself in every sense of the word “afford”.
This crowd revealed one thing to me, their resentment for anyone who prioritizes protecting America. Islam is out enemy, that is an established fact, but those people in the audience are our enemies too. They revile us and seek our oppression or worse. I can only say after watching they held themselves in check as they knew it was being videotaped.
I think we’re going to have a big war with Iran. Who to trust in this? I think I would go for Trump or Christie…,maybe a little edge toward Christie. I wonder about Trump’s volatility and his background historical knowledge. I think Christie has some useful street smarts from the big cities and a trifle more wisdom. But Rubio…too young, might be intimidated in hard ball. Cruz…I love him but his character suggests slippery. Fiorina…great but same comment as for Rubio. She actually might be the best, but this requires a bet with high odds. No one else.
Trump is a quick learner and is open to listening to people. From my observation of him over the course of the campaign, I see someone who has learned and adapted over the course of time. I do not think his lack of historical knowledge (understandable considering how active his business focus has been) is a detriment. There are whole departments chock full of experts who can bring him up to speed. I also do not think he is volatile – that is media suggestion. He understands that you have to push back and hard if you are going to deal with certain types (the Rosies of the world), but I seriously doubt he has accomplished such a diversified company by volatility. He is a New Yorker, and no doubt a tough aggressive exterior has been a very helpful part of his persona in a cut throat business like real estate.
All in all, I trust Trump as an executive who has deal with failure and loss (and bad publicity and mockery) and has had to get back on his feet. He seems to be able to roll with the punches and not get knocked off of his game by media (and other) critiques. Leadership and executive ability are talents that many aspire to, but not all attain. I think Trump has that elusive air of authority that can make people willing to follow him, and that is what we are desperately going to need. I think things are much worse than we imagine, and I suspect that Trump has an idea of this, which is why he decided to take the trouble of running himself rather than just supporting someone in the field.
WP, are you familiar with the muslim pandering past of Fiorina and Christie.
War with Iran? How about Turkey? I too like Cruz. (and Trump!)
The ending was quiet – no boos and no bravos. His listeners should be ashamed: they failed to welcome with genuine approval the candidate most committed to Israel’s survival. They proved again that being smart isn’t necessarily a point in your favor when it comes to survival.
I think the problem with Trump is that he’s also committed to America’s survival. And America’s survival depends on ending and reversing mass immigration, which won’t be good for profit.
One of the most important things Trump said was ‘I don’t need your money’. He is the only politician in the US who can’t be bought, because he is self-funding. I never thought I’d say it, but this is the benefit of having a very rich candidate. Being free of financial considerations, he can say what he likes. Yes, he is dependent on public opinion being on his side, but he’s relatively free from financial coercion.
I’m a Brit, & we don’t do whoops & shouts at political meetings. To me, the response to Trump didn’t sound tepid at all. To me it sounded as if the response was pretty enthusiastic – applause & some cheers after most of his comments (& it would sound fainter than the speaker because audience applause isn’t amplified).
I understand why Jews would be keen to vote for Trump but would do so quietly. Why? Because there is already a climate of fear in the US for people who go against the mainstream so-called liberal consensus: targeted IRS attacks, targeted Islamic attacks… Understandably, as a small, visible, minority, Jews do not want to draw attention to themselves from the fascist left.
Good point.
There are two types of tycoon in my professional experience: those who are tyrants who only occasionally take good advice; and those that understand that they don’t and can’t know and do everything so they employ high quality people around them as advisers to do what they can’t and rely upon them. Bill Gates employing an old college buddy who was in marketing for a tobacco company is an excellent case in point: Gates knew he knew nothing about marketing so, in the very early days of Microsoft, employed someone whom he respected who did. Who eventually became the CEO of Microsoft. Nixon hiring Kissinger for the latter’s foreign policy credentials, Pat Buchanan as a speech writer and DP Moynihan for domestic policy are even more pertinent examples.
I hope Trump is of, or closer to, the latter of the two categories of tycoon. I suspect he is, as achieving success in the property development business is much harder than it looks, ie one has to rely on people who know more than you do about x, y and z. Trump is not the first of the hundredth to go bankrupt more than once and rise again.
“Marie Antoinette, playing his fiddle in the Oval Office while Rome burns”, Dymphna? I thought it was Nero who said “Let them eat cake”.
I suspect you just wanted to see if anyone would notice and write in; pleased to oblige!
The response seems entirely positive to me with plenty of applause. Why all the judgmental comments that there isn’t enough cheering?? Seems to me some commenters have a predetermined negative view of who the audience is. Word of advice – this is not a Southern Baptist Church with people singing in the aisles, but the audience response does seem clearly positive.